Do the Math

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    The Sox offense bailed out the staff again, but this is evidence to a clown that our offense is our biggest weakness.

    This issue is the "poster child" of clown logic.
     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    The using the 3 runs or less , and 4 runs or more is kind of like a sucker bet. How many less or how many more ?  Obviously , when you get 0 runs , you will always lose. When you get 1 run , you will almost always lose. When you get 2 runs , you will usually lose. Same thing the other way. If you score 9 , 10 or 12 runs , you will usually win.  In other words , if you score exactly 3 runs , you win only if our pitching holds the opponent to 2 or less. That does not happen very often. Basically , the way the proposition is worded , it is indeed a sucker bet.  This would apply to most , if not all teams. Not unique to the Sox.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    what math?

    He thinks cutting and pasting game log data is "math".

    He thinks just because he invented a term ("median average") that nobody understands, he's the next Archimedes.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    The using the 3 runs or less , and 4 runs or more is kind of like a sucker bet. How many less or how many more ?  Obviously , when you get 0 runs , you will always lose. When you get 1 run , you will almost always lose. When you get 2 runs , you will usually lose. Same thing the other way. If you score 9 , 10 or 12 runs , you will usually win.  In other words , if you score exactly 3 runs , you win only if our pitching holds the opponent to 2 or less. That does not happen very often. Basically , the way the proposition is worded , it is indeed a sucker bet.  This would apply to most , if not all teams. Not unique to the Sox.

    Exactly, and softy misses the point that games can be won with pitching as well as offense, but more importantly, a team that keeps the score low is able to stay close more often and perhaps win more than they "deserve". For example, the Rays have won 6 games (6-13) when their offense scored only 1-3 runs while the Sox are just 1-13. That's basically the difference between 1st and last place. Conversely, the Rays have lost all but 1 game when they let up 7 or more runs, but have only done it 7 times. (We are 0-8) They are 2-9 in games their staff and defense have let up 5-6 runs. (The Sox are 8-6.) We are 1-3 in 4 runs allowed games.


     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from JimfromFlorida. Show JimfromFlorida's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    Doesn't he realize that the Rays have won more games than the RS in 3 of the past 4 yrs because of their pitching. Since their hitting has been in either 11, 12 or 13 in the AL.

    The RS have more than enough hitting even without their real OF or the infamous STAR RH hitter he wants all the time.

    If the Rays had the RS hitting they might have lost only one or two games this year.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    Here's the real  data:

    2012 Pitching Plus/Minus
    Runs scored by offense
    Runs  AL win%               Expected    Sox Actual
              '11-'12     Tot. Gms    Wins          Wins          Differential
    0          .000             2           .000              0                .000
    1          .102             5           .510              1              +.490
    2          .219             4           .876              0              - .876
    3          .364             6         2.184              0             -2.184
    4          .537             5         2.685              2              - .685
    5          .648             3         1.944              3             +1.056
    6          .693             5         3,465              3              -.465
    7          .804             3         2.412              3              +.392
    8          .887             1           .887              1              +.113 
    9          .907             1           .907              0              -.907
    10        .926             2          1.852             2             +.148
    11+      .991             7          6.937             6              -.937

    If we look at the 19 games where we scored 1-4 runs, we should have won 6.255 games, but instead we only won 3. That shows that our staff did not pitch as well as the AL norm in low scoring games. We lost 3.255 more games than we "should have" (based on league norms) due to our staff letting up too many runs in these low scoring games. 

    This shows the exact opposite of what the silly clown (softy) is saying. Yes, with 3 guys out of our line-up, we have scored 4 or less runs a little too often, but when we have, we should have 3 more wins. The staff let us down by not pitching well enough to get about 3 more wins.

    Let's look at games where we score 5-7 runs: We should have 7.821 wins out of those 11 games, and we have 9 wins. That's a 1.179 plus. This means our pitchers helped us win about 1.179 more games than we should have in this range.

    In the 10 games we scored over 9 runs, we won 8.616 games, but instead we won only 8. That means our staff lost .616 more games than we should have in this range.

    The net of our staff comes to  MINUS  1.460

    This shows for the amount of games we scored a particular amount of runs, we should have about 1 and half more wins than we do now: meaning the pitching has lost us about 1.5 games over the American League norm.

    To be fair, we must look at it from the other side:

    2012 Offense Plus/Minus:
    Runs allowed by pitching and defense:

                AL     Total Gms   Expected    Actual wins
    RunsL win%   '   11-12         wins          Wins       Differential
    0         1.000           2           2.000             2               .000
    1           .901           6           5.406             4               -.604
    2           .787           4           3.148             3               -.148
    3           .615           5           3.075             3               -.075
    4           .466           4           1.864             1               -.864
    5           .354           7           2.478             6            +3.522
    6           .260           8           1.820            3             +.180
    7           .196           1            .196             0               -.196
    8           .120           2            .240             0               -.240
    9           .081           1            .081             0               -.081
    10         .090           1            .090             0               -.090
    11+      .009            3            .027             0               -.027

    In games where our staff pitched very well by allowing 1-4 runs, we should have won 13.493 games by following the AL norm, but instead we won 13 games. So, basically, softy's whole position is based on our offense losing .493 more games than we should have in games where our staff pitched well. LESS THAN A HALF GAME! (If you estimated the amount of wins, you'd round off to 13: the exact amount we have!)

    However, now let us look at how many times our bats bailed out our staff when they struggles: in games our staff let up 5-7 runs, we should have won 4.494 games, but we really won 9! Our offense won 4.506 more games than the AL average when our staff struggled.

    In high scoring games or letting up 8+ runs, we should have won .634 out of 7 games. We have won none, so our offense "lost us" .634 wins in this runs allowed category.  

    Our plus/minus net for our offense:  PLUS 3.379

    In review, our staff has lost us about 1.5 games and our offense has won us about 3.5 games, this with Ellsbury and CC out almost all year, and Youk out for some of it, and yet softy claims it is our offense that is the weak link and in need of repair. While the offense could be improved, it likely will once we get healthy, but it is clearly the staff that needs tweaking.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    Speaking of Upton and TB, I mentioned this past winter that even if TB was in a pennant race, they might look to trade BJ Upton (the other Upton) who makes $7M this year and becomes a FA this winter. The Rays need a catcher badly, and once Jennings returns, the Rays will have one too many OF'ers. They also need offense (2B? SS? 1B? DH?), and even with Niemann on the DL still have a surplus of starters. (Alex Cobb just pitched a nice game as he stepped in to replace Jeff.) Wade Davis is in the pen, but is a nice starter. He's still underpaid (12:$1.5M, 13:$2.8M,   14:$4.8M, 15:$7M club option, 16:$8M club option, 17:$10M club option ($2.5M buyout), so it doesn't make sense for TB to trade him now, and they are in our division, but we seem to match up well as trading partners out of mutual needs.

    Would you offer this?

    Trade:
    Lavarnway
    Melancon
    Mortensen
    Any 3 of: D. Nava, DMac, Gomez, Anderson, Tejada, or Sean Coyle 

    For:
    BJ Upton
    Wade Davis

    If TB wanted Iggy and moves Sean Rodriguez back to 2B, I'd consider including him instead of Melancon or Mortensen.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliamsjr. Show hankwilliamsjr's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    Yes, with 3 guys out of our line-up, we have scored 4 or less runs a little too often, but when we have, we should have 3 more wins. The staff let us down by not pitching well enough to get about 3 more wins.


    You have posted a lot of drivel with fractions for "expected wins". You claim to have me on ignore, yet you have polluted this thread with your demented elderly rainman brain of bilge charts of nonsense so absurd that it says nothing while attempting to bugaboo as "sceintific aggreagate averages". 

    You are like the idiots who can't play a lick of golf but who use stats and talk about "strokes saved in putting".  

    When you posted "yes we have scored 4 runs or less a little to often, you get the idiots award. The Red Sox have scored 3 runs or less a little too often, you moron! 


    Actually, my point is exactly what the W/L record says when the team scores 3 runs or less or 4 runs or more.

    My point is not "the offense isn't good enough", you moron, it's when the offense does what it must do for the Red Sox to have a winning identity it, in fact, wins almost every time!!!!!! My point is that the Red Sox have been big losers ever since managment evidently is as stupid as you are and not as smart as Dan Duquette and understands that Manny hasn't been replaced, you "it's the pitching" and resign Varitek and Tim Wastefield lunatic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliamsjr. Show hankwilliamsjr's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    No, moron, it's not "the pitching more than anything!".

    And, put me on ignore like you cowardly keep whining that you have done, and GTFOMT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    Yes, with 3 guys out of our line-up, we have scored 4 or less runs a little too often, but when we have, we should have 3 more wins. The staff let us down by not pitching well enough to get about 3 more wins.


    You have posted a lot of drivel with fractions for "expected wins". You claim to have me on ignore, yet you have polluted this thread with your demented elderly rainman brain of bilge charts of nonsense so absurd that it says nothing while attempting to bugaboo as "sceintific aggreagate averages". 

    I wasn't aware that I had to notify you and bthe board when I chose to take you off ignore.

    My charts show how we are doing as compared to other American League teams in games where a specific amount of runs are scored or allowed. Your whole crazy theory is based on observing each game and assigning blame accordingly. You then changed your criteria (as you always do when your theory disintegrates) to the offense now needing to score 'early", thereby you still blame the offense if the they score 5 or 6 runs later in the game and we lose 6-5 or 7-6. Your methodology is patently absurd.  

    Nobody is doubting that we have too many games with 3 or less runs scored. Most of us think that will change once Ellsbury, Sweeney, CC, return and now that we have Youk back. You won't see it that way, because you refuse to accept that Ellsbury will be a plus on offense over Byrd. More patent absurdity.

    You are like the idiots who can't play a lick of golf but who use stats and talk about "strokes saved in putting".  

    When you posted "yes we have scored 4 runs or less a little to often, you get the idiots award. The Red Sox have scored 3 runs or less a little too often, you moron! 

    We have scored 3 and less as well as 4 and less to often. The league winning percent when scoring 4 runs is just barely over 50%. To make the playoffs, scoring 5 runs jumps the percent from .537 to .648. If you knew anything about baseball, you'd know that .537 will not make the playoffs, but .648 will. That's math, not "science".

    Actually, my point is exactly what the W/L record says when the team scores 3 runs or less or 4 runs or more. 

    And the point you keep missing and refuse to even address is that when we do score 3 runs or less or 4 runs or less, we have lost more than the normal American League average winning percent in those low scoring games. Our pitching has not risen to the occasion enough to win our share of low scoring games. Expecting us to nefver score less than 4 runms a game is absurd. Thinking the only way to win is to avoid doing so, is even more absurd.

    We have scored 1-3 runs 15 times this year. That doesn't and should mean we should be 0-15 in those games. We are 1-14 in those games, while the leagu average is 4-10. Yet, you lay 100% of the blame for those 14 losses on the offense. You won't even respond to the fact that other teams have staff's that out-duel other team's pitchers when they are doing well. The Rays have actually scored 1-3 runs more than us! Guess what. They are 6-13 in those games. See, it can be done with top quality pitching.

    My point is not "the offense isn't good enough", you moron, it's when the offense does what it must do for the Red Sox to have a winning identity it, in fact, wins almost every time!!!!!! 

    This is a blatant lie. You have continously been calling on the Sox to trade for a  big RH'd bat from Kemp to now Upton. You claim that the reason we are not winning is because our offense needs repair, not our pitching. Unlike you, I am not misrepresenting your position. 

    Of course if we score more runs, we should win more games, but so far this year, the reason we are not above .500 is more on the pitching than the hitting. Only a silly clown would argue otherwise. 

    Why not try and actually watch some games.

    My point is that the Red Sox have been big losers ever since managment evidently is as stupid as you are and not as smart as Dan Duquette and understands that Manny hasn't been replaced...

    See, you are contradicting yourself from one paragraph to the next.

    You are claiming that the offense is not "doing what it must do", but the fact is, they are, even short-handed! It's the staff that overall, has not done what it must do to get us a few more wins... like letting up one less run in low scoring games,m orm like not losing games when we score 9 or 12 runs for them.

    TB has 19 games of scoring 1-3 runs (20 of 0-4). We have 15 games with 1-3 and 17 games with 0-4 runs scored.

    In 2011, the Sox scored 0 runs 11 times and 1-3 runs 44 times (11-33). Last year we won 25% of the games we scored 1-3 runs, this year we have won under 7% of those games. Last year, the rays were shut out 15 times! (4 more than us.) They also scored 1-3 runs 55 times (11 more times than us!)  That's 15 more times the TB offense scored 0-3 runs!!!!! They were 14-41 in games of 1-3 runs scored. (About as 26% win %)

    It is clearly not just the amount of games an offense scores 3 or under that determines playoff likelihood, pitcghing plays a key role. Sox history is full of times we had the best offense and missed out on even making the playoffs. It was only when we got Pedro, Curt, and Josh, did we really have a significant shot at some rings. (Having one ace was never enough.)

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliamsjr. Show hankwilliamsjr's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    I like how the raw aggregate numbers from Moonshwemp include park factor and all the footnotes to show something from nothing.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    The numbers show the scores by each indivual game, added up. They are compared to other AL teams not NL teams. The park factor is not that great anymore, and even if you break it down to home and away, the numbers still show that the offense has won more games for us than the pitching, and the offense has lost less games for us than the pitching when you combine home and away overall.

    The math is done.

    You have contradicted yourself over and over. 

    Time to move back to Wake and VTek. Oh wait, I see you already have.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    2012 Pitching Plus/Minus
    Runs scored by offense
    Runs  AL win%               Expected    Sox Actual
              '11-'12     Tot. Gms    Wins          Wins          Differential
    0          .000             2           .000              0                .000
    1          .102             5           .510              1              +.490
    2          .219             4           .876              0              - .876
    3          .364             6         2.184              0             -2.184
    4          .537             5         2.685              2              - .685
    5          .648             3         1.944              3             +1.056
    6          .693             5         3,465              3              -.465
    7          .804             3         2.412              3              +.392
    8          .887             1           .887              1              +.113 
    9          .907             1           .907              0              -.907
    10        .926             2          1.852             2             +.148
    11+      .991             7          6.937             6              -.937


    The net of our staff comes to  MINUS  1.460

    To be fair, we must look at it from the other side:

    2012 Offense Plus/Minus:
    Runs allowed by pitching and defense:

                AL     Total Gms   Expected    Actual wins
    RunsL win%   '   11-12         wins          Wins       Differential
    0         1.000           2           2.000             2               .000
    1           .901           6           5.406             4               -.604
    2           .787           4           3.148             3               -.148
    3           .615           5           3.075             3               -.075
    4           .466           4           1.864             1               -.864
    5           .354           7           2.478             6            +3.522
    6           .260           8           1.820            3             +.180
    7           .196           1            .196             0               -.196
    8           .120           2            .240             0               -.240
    9           .081           1            .081             0               -.081
    10         .090           1            .090             0               -.090
    11+      .009            3            .027             0               -.027

    Our plus/minus net for our offense:  PLUS 3.379

    In review, our staff has lost us about 1.5 games and our offense has won us about 3.5 games, this with Ellsbury and CC out almost all year, and Youk out for some of it, and yet softy claims it is our offense that is the weak link and in need of repair. While the offense could be improved, it likely will once we get healthy, but it is clearly the staff that needs tweaking.

    As for the home and away baloney:

    Runs scored:
    Home: 113  (5.65 per game)
    Away:  123  (5.125)

    Runs Allowed:
    Home: 111 (5.55)
    Away:  108 (4.50)

    Our offense has scored about a half a run more at home than on the road, but the pitching has let up a run more at home per game. I guess soft blames this on the offense.

    Here are the scores of our home games. I highlighted the ones our offense did not pull it's share in red (scored 0-4 runs and it made a difference, because the pitching allowed 4 or less runs), and the ones the pitching/defense did not pull their share in blue (let up 5 or more runs and it made a difference, because if our hitting had scored exactly 5 runs, we'd have lost anyways or we won because our hitting scored 5 or more runs and it was needed to get the win). This is looking at it from the point of view of the blame or credit of the offense:

    12-2
    13-5
    6-4
    0-1
    3-18
    3-6
    2-6
    9-15
    11-6
    3-5 (If our offense scored 5, this game would have gone to extras)
    2-4
    4-6
    2-8
    6-9
    3-8
    7-5
    4-1
    12-1
    6-1
    5-0

    Do the math.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliamsjr. Show hankwilliamsjr's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    The park factor is not that great anymore,

    At the end of the day, as with Tim Wastefield, you post Federal Register piles of nonsense that are aimed to distract the reader from reality. Park factor is a huge factor in team identity and value, something you don't have a clue about with your constant whining about "it's the pitching and we need Slackey and Santana to fix it".

    You claimed to have my comments on ignore, then proceed to come on this thread, as the resident NYT Board shill, and post a bunch of the same nonsense you would post about your beloved Tim Wastefield's "best #4 or #5 in MLB" nonsense.

    Unlike your cowardly pleas to keep your circle jerk thread exclusive to a propaganda cheerleaders bumping and burping bordeom, I don't have a problem with you coming on this thread. But, understand that you are a coward who who claims to put my comments on ignore and then "take them off".

    In review, our staff has lost us about 1.5 games

    And Star Trek junior badge man of "stats", get back to the Board with how a team loses a half a game. LMAO!

    Now, you can post all your snipets and charts and graphs from idle mind all you want, but none of it will say more than the following, which has nothing to do with "it's the pitching" and everything to do with the Red Sox AL East/DH/Fenway winning identity and losing identity:

    1-17 when scoring 3 runs or less
    19-3 when scoring 4 earned runs or more

    You don't have a clue about what kind of roster construction and player profile provides the best value for the Red Sox, which isn't "let's trade for Santana". 

    The beauty of the information age is that the days of shills ruling a rigged forum are over! This site is dead the moment it becomes an echo chamber for NYT de jure or de facto shills like you!

    As for "most of think that when Ellsbury and Crawford return", since "it's the pitching" and "Aviles is off the charts in production", that won't matter!!!! LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    Proving you don't understand math.

    (BTW, I wasn't aware I needed to inform you or the board when I took you off ignore.)
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliamsjr. Show hankwilliamsjr's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    BTW, your "math" didn't work for Tim Wastefield.

    BTW, I wasn't aware that you needed to inform me that you had me on ignore, but, countless times, that is exactly what you have done.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: Do the Math


    Bill Hall

    Astros made him the first starter to get cut in 2011.

    The Giants cut him after 6 weeks

    The EE release him!

    Raking in Bodymore, Murderland
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliamsjr. Show hankwilliamsjr's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    Good ole "I'm enamored with elite All-Star SS Jed Lowrie" Tom-United Kindom of Socialists, trolls on by with a comment about Bill Hall and his 2012 .545 OBP, not bad for a career UIF'er that simply can't have the kind of great career that is now blooming for the great Jed Lowrie.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    Sure wish we had BHall back here, along with Ben Sheets and Nick Johnson, and "stone statue Hernandez" at catcher, and VMart on the DL here, and Coco, and ...
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    Sad news, for softflaw!  That OBP didn't save that great third base stolen base threat.



    Orioles Designate Bill Hall For Assignment

    The Orioles announced that they designated utility player Bill Hall for assignment. They optioned Luis Exposito to Triple-A and recalled Stu Pomeranz and Ronny Paulino in corresponding moves.

    The Orioles signed Hall to a minor league deal in April and selected his contract on May 12th. Hall became the 22nd Oriole in team history to homer in his first game with Baltimore, but appeared in just five more games before losing his roster spot. Hall had signed a minor league deal with the Yankees in February, and elected free agency in April. He has MLB experience at every position but catcher and first base.


     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliamsjr. Show hankwilliamsjr's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    When the offense puts runs up early and

    scores 4 or more earned runs, they are

    20-3.

    When the offense scores 3 earned runs or

    less, they are 2-19

    Red Sox in AL/DL/Fenway aren't going to be playing a bunch of pitching duel games, even with the best pitchers in baseball on the embarrassingly bloated with poor value payroll. Their winning identity is a more capable offense in the kind of individual games with plenty of runs scored that they will usually be involved in, not due to poor pitching, but due to AL/DH/Fenway.

    Good pitching by the Red Sox, yesterday, but a loss due to poor plate work. Without a consistent offense they will continue to manifest the zero playoff wins and near half a billion InEpstein construction.
     
    Early and solid hitting for the Red Sox. Poor pitching. Nice to see the identity of this team working wins.

    Oakland, May 1, 2012   Pitching was fair for a Fenway/DH-AL game, offense was pitiful.

    Oakland, May 2, 2012  Pitching was good in this Fenway/AL game, but the offense was pitiful. Good pitching, and another loss.

    O's, May 4, 2012  Pitching was good, only 4 runs through 9 in this Fenway/AL game, but the offense is unable to score more than 3 earned runs. Another loss. 

    O's, May 5, 2012 After 3 straight games of good pitching for each game, the pitching has a bad game and the pitiful offense continues to produce a string of pitiful offensive production games.

    O's, May 6, 2012 A rarity, the Red Sox score more than 3 earned runs but lose

    @ KC May 7, 2012 Offense wins one again

    @ KC May 8, 2012 Offense is pitiful v great J. Duffy and scores 3 ER Loss

    @ KC May 9, 2012 Good pitching but the Offense is pathetic against the great Bruce Chen 3 ER Loss

    Clev May 10, 2012 Offense a pitiful 3 ER v. Old journeyman Lowe

    Clev May 11, 2012  Offense Wins it and pitching with 4 ER is Good (People whine about the pitching in this game is pitiful) 

    Clev May 12, 2012 Offense hit magic number 4 ER and staff has a great pitching game

    Clev May 13, 2012 Offense scores early and carries the pitching to a huge cushion. The offense is the identity. It carries the pitching, not the other way around.

    Clev May 14, 2012 Offense scores early, reaches winning identity threshhold and one of the two decent starters needed to succeed in regular season and post season with winning identity pitches well

    Clev May 15, 2012 Offense scores early, reaches winning identity threshhold and pitching staff gets cushion to ease pressure and produce shutout

    @ Tampa May 16, 2012 Pitching losing identity poster child, offense is pitiful and pitching is outstanding to produce a loss

    @ Tampa May 17, 2012 Offense scores 3 early and reaches the magic number of 4 earned runs and scores 5 earned runs. Had the pitching been outstanding and the offense in pitiful game mode, the Red Sox would have lost this game for near certainty. The offense always sets the winning identity tone for the Red Sox, as this game paradigmed.

    @ Phily May 18, 2012 A rarity, Offense reaches 4 earned runs and loses. But it's no suprise that Lefty for Phillies got a rare win in a game where the Red Sox scored 4 earned runs

    @ Phily May 19, 2012 Poster child game, Red Sox offense, no suprise, handles Blanton and Red Sox win despite subpar pitching staff game performance
    (Note: This offense, as constructed, will never put up the consistent offense needed for the Red Sox winning identity that management is oblivious to)

    @ Phily May 20, 2012  Offense scores early and scores 5 earned runs, taking game pressure off the pitching staff and putting on the Phillies. Ditto
    Red Sox win or lose with the identity that doesn't fit the archaic cliche of many years ago, in the AL. Drones are like apes, except apes are much more intelligent.

    @ O's May 21, 2012 Poor pitching and offense identity is the winner. Whether the Red Sox pitch wellor not, it is the offense that is the winning identity. Currently, as constructed, this offense has a fatal flaw that will not do the job without a trade.

    @ O's May 22, 2012 Another poster child game! 1 ER against the great left Matusz! Staff goes 7.2 on the road and allow only 2 ER and fnishes with an acceptable job performance of 4 ER. Pitiful!

    @ O's May 23, 2012 After a pitiful offense game and another almost guaranteed loss, the offense hits the ER threshhold of 5 and wins with it's winning identity

    Tampax Rays May 25, 2012  Offense fails to score a single earned run until the 5th inning in the hitters paradise that is Fenway, finishing the night with an impressive offensive total of 3 earned runs and one unearned run. The great Mike Aviles improves his OBP to a smooth .289 while providing that much needed slugging to the best offense in all of baseball

    Tampax Rays May 26, 2012 Offense puts up 3 ER and goes from 1-19 to 2-19 in games where they score 3 ER or less. Perhaps Youk and Aviles need to be upgrade on for that middle of the lineup RH bat. LMAO!

    The Red Sox need to start working on acquiring Justin Upton, via trade market. Until such time as Cherry sobers up, Youk needs to be put in LF, Middlebrooks remains at 3B, and Ross (not the everyday RH star bat answer) needs to platoon with Sweeney. Ross is a horrible fielder, so Byrd will need to stay in CF for the time being. 

    Notes: Aviles stinks, despite his current fan club. Salty also stinks'

    Middlebrooks has been the single most important move in improving the ultimate issue with the "billion dollar zero playoff wins in 3 years".
     
    Yes, Peter A. Puffer, a trade is necessary for "a last place team in May" 

    "The Red Sox lead the league in nearly every offensive category, it's the pitching". No it aint!

    The value is not in the foolish attempts to pay fortunes to find a pitcher who can typically give up less than 3 ER per outing in the AL East/Fenway, but in an everyday RH young star OF player to replace the "we're now losers with a massive payroll after Manny aged out" Red Sox.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliamsjr. Show hankwilliamsjr's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    Imagine how good things would be if the great Tim Wastefiled had his good ole boy million dollar contract renewed, along with the great Adam Dunn and John Slackey. Imagine how much better the Red Sox would be with the great Jed Lowrie back as the elite career everyday slugging SS. InEpstein was brilliant in finding gems like Jed Lowrie and Mike AViles. These players are winners, every place they get shipped to.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnchiladaT. Show EnchiladaT's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    Didn't the two of you get along really well a year or two back? I thought you did, maybe not. 
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    Nobody is saying that if we had less games where we score 4 or less runs, we'd have more wins, however being 2-10 in games where we score 3-4 runs can not and should not be 100% the fault of our offense.

    The Rays are 10-10 in games where their offense scored just 3-4 runs.
    The Rangers are 8-8.
    The American League (not counting the Sox) is 84-89.

    The AL has a .628 winning % when scoring 4 runs. The Sox are .333.

    The Sox are 6-1 when the staff let's up 5 runs; the rest of the American League is  23-50.

    This doesn't mean our offense has not lost us some games. They have lost plenty, but is clear that our pitching and defense has been bailed out way more in 5 run games, but hasn't "bailed out" the offense in 3 & 4 run games.

    Yes, guys like Aviles, Ross, Nava, and others may come back down to earth, but with Ellsbury and other returning off the DL at some point, the important question is where is our biggest weakness and how can we fix it. While getting a big bopper RH'd bat would be nice, it is not our biggest need.
     

Share